Travel plan contributions and monitoring fees in section 106

A travel plan contribution in a section 106 agreement has to pass the same three statutory tests as any other obligation, and a surprising number do not. The monitoring fee is a separate matter with its own express basis in the regulations, which is why it survives challenges that the underlying contribution does not. Knowing which is which changes what you can sensibly resist during negotiation.

The tests are set out in regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. An obligation may only be a reason for granting permission where it is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to it.

What contributions are commonly sought

Highway authorities ask for a fairly standard menu alongside a travel plan:

• A sustainable transport contribution, usually a lump sum towards bus services, cycle infrastructure or footway improvements.
• Travel vouchers or free public transport passes for first occupiers, sometimes per dwelling.
• A travel plan monitoring fee, paid to the authority to cover the cost of checking that the plan is implemented.
• A travel plan bond or default payment, held as security and drawn down if agreed targets are not met.
• Car club provision, including vehicle procurement and a subsidy period.
• Contributions towards a controlled parking zone, or towards the traffic regulation order that creates one.

The first three appear on almost every major residential consent. The remainder depend on location and on the authority's own policy framework.

Each should be examined separately. A package presented as a single sum, with no breakdown, is harder to test against the regulations and easier for an authority to inflate.

The regulation 122 tests applied to them

Work through the tests item by item.

Necessary to make the development acceptable. This asks what the planning objection is, and whether the contribution removes it. A sustainable transport contribution is necessary where the transport assessment identifies a mode share target that cannot be met without the intervention. It is not necessary simply because the authority has a tariff.

Directly related to the development. The money must address an impact this development causes. A contribution towards a scheme five kilometres away, serving a different corridor, fails this even if the scheme is worthwhile.

Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. Proportionality. A contribution calculated as a share of a larger scheme's cost, based on the development's share of the trips, meets this. A round figure with no derivation does not.

Where a contribution fails a test, it cannot lawfully be a reason for granting permission, and an inspector on appeal will disregard it. That does not stop an authority asking, and it does not stop applicants agreeing to things they need not, usually because the programme cost of arguing exceeds the sum in dispute.

The evidence for what is actually necessary comes from the Transport Assessment, which is why a vague assessment tends to produce a generous obligation.

Monitoring fees and what they cover

Monitoring fees sat in a grey area until the regulations were amended to allow local authorities to charge a fee for monitoring planning obligations, provided the sum is proportionate and reasonably related to the monitoring of the obligation over its lifetime.

That express basis makes monitoring fees hard to resist in principle. It does not make any particular figure defensible.

What a monitoring fee should cover: officer time to receive and review travel surveys, to check that measures have been delivered, to correspond with the travel plan coordinator, and to maintain the record. What it should not cover: the authority's general transport planning work, the cost of producing its own policies, or a share of the monitoring of other people's developments.

Ask for the derivation. A fee expressed as a number of officer hours per year at a stated rate, for a stated number of years, is auditable. A percentage of the total contribution is not, and percentage-based monitoring fees are the ones most often reduced on negotiation.

Monitoring periods for travel plans usually run five years from first occupation, with surveys at years one, three and five. A fee covering ten years of monitoring for a five-year plan is worth questioning.

Bonds and default payments

A travel plan bond is a sum secured, often by bank guarantee, which the authority may draw on if the travel plan fails to meet its targets. Its purpose is to give the plan teeth.

The mechanism raises real questions. A bond is not a contribution towards infrastructure; it is security against a future failure, and the drawdown trigger has to be defined precisely enough to be operable. Where the trigger is a mode share target, the agreement needs to say how mode share is measured, what survey response rate is acceptable, what happens if the survey is inconclusive, and what the money is spent on if drawn.

Points worth negotiating:

1. A cap on the total sum, and a mechanism for it to be released in tranches as targets are met.
2. Release of the balance at the end of the monitoring period where targets have been achieved.
3. A remediation period, so that a missed target triggers an agreed action plan before any drawdown.
4. Clear specification of what drawn funds may be spent on, restricted to measures serving the development.
5. A ceiling on the number of consecutive surveys that can trigger drawdown.

The remediation step is the important one. A travel plan is meant to change behaviour over time, and a mechanism that penalises a year-one shortfall without allowing the plan to work is a poor instrument.

Indexation and payment triggers

Almost every obligation is indexed, and the index matters. Construction cost indices and general inflation indices move differently, and over a five-year build the difference on a large contribution is material. Check which index the draft agreement uses and whether the base date is the date of the agreement or an earlier one.

Payment triggers determine cash flow. The common ones are commencement, first occupation, occupation of a stated number of units, and phased payment against build-out. Push for triggers linked to occupation rather than to commencement, because occupation is when the impact arises and the trigger is then easier to defend as proportionate.

On phased schemes, tie contributions to the phase that generates the impact. A single payment on first commencement for a scheme building out over eight years fails the proportionality test in substance even where it passes it on paper.

Challenging a contribution that fails the tests

The routes available, in ascending order of cost.

Negotiation with the case officer, supported by a written analysis against the three tests, resolves most disputes. Officers are generally willing to reduce or drop items where the analysis is sound, because they do not want the obligation struck out later.

Appeal. An inspector will assess each obligation against regulation 122 and disregard those that fail. Where a refusal rests partly on a refusal to enter an obligation that was never lawful, a costs application may follow.

Modification or discharge of an existing obligation under the statutory procedure, available once five years have passed, where the obligation no longer serves a useful purpose.

Before any of that, check whether the item is actually in the authority's adopted policy. A contribution sought under a draft policy that has not been through examination carries much less weight, and saying so politely in writing often resolves it.

Recording the outcome in the agreement

The drafting points that cause problems later:

• Define the travel plan by reference to a dated document, and state who approves revisions.
• Name the travel plan coordinator role and require the developer to fund it for a stated period.
• Set out survey methodology and timing precisely, rather than referring to surveys to be agreed.
• State what happens on transfer, since a management company or a registered provider may inherit the obligation.
• Record the monitoring fee derivation in a schedule, so a later dispute can be resolved without reconstructing it.

Keep the Travel Plan itself consistent with the agreement. Where the plan sets targets the agreement does not measure, or the agreement measures targets the plan does not set, the obligation becomes difficult to operate for both sides. The same discipline applies to highway works secured separately, and the interaction with the strategic network is covered in strategic road network access under Circular 01/2022.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which transport documents a scheme at your site is likely to need before you reach the obligation stage.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.